the chair of the senate armed services committee. he also shared his thoughts on the u.s. defense strategy and how it compares to other countries like china and russia. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> i'm going to ask you to do something very special. i'm going to ask you to pray with me. we and the free world and those

of us ask that you help us to use the great america for a model in our country and that is our fallen heroes george h. w. bush. we ask this in jesus name. i'm sure most of you would be surprised if you didn't see the funeral yesterday. he's had quite a career. it is a pleasure seeing you and having the opportunity to talk and respond to your questions. it's fitting that we are gathered here and i say this lets me see a show of hands.

you mean the shy. you know about american heroes and george bush. there is one that you probably don't know much about and that's george marshall. he had more titles than anyone else. it was the greatest responsibility of those entrusted with providing for the common defense and he said we are now concerned with the peace of the entire world and it can

only be maintained by the stro strong. we have to be involved in the whole world in the fact that we would have only. it was a totally different world so we let things slide a little bit and it was the greatest single calamity in the history of the country. that's what my messages this morning we kind of slid back into this area but we didn't have the opportunities we had at that time.

to maintain the peace america must be strong and so in the years that followed the ability to the defense is we developed a plan called the marshall plan and you all read about that. we just don't hear about him. we are the heirs of the unprecedented peace prosperity is to have given the generation we achieved and it's up to us to regain its inheritance. doing so will not be easy just click marshall did in the challenge throughout history and the dangers of the world. today the nation faces the most diverse area of threats i can remember and this is for everyone here to be aware of those of you who are senior officers and i appreciate you

being here we've got problems out there. i can remember all the time i was growing up i assumed he had the best of everything and we knew the threats that were out there at that time that they are differenbut they aredifferent tn before because this was pointed out in president trumps message when he said he had competitors russia and china. they are doing some things better than we are doing it. then you go down to the next group.

i am remember the good old daye had the superpowers that had this isn't the case now. it's not a superpower we are worried about. preserving peace. the decisions that are in the

deserving peace would not be made in beijing or moscow they don't want peace those decisions are made across america by free citizens and that you guys out there and us. we must choose to lead the free world and defend both our interests and values and restore our military advantage against the authoritarian adversaries and try to reach out to get new partners. i have to say to my friends who are part of the program in the audience we are trying to expand the relationship developed at

this level once we have these relationships we are friends for life. this vision will guide me as the chair man and a defense university. let me do something i wasn't going to do before the two koreas is faster so we have time for questions we have a six-point program. first we are going to use the defense strategy to report as a print. this is very significant. i say this to the provost, to the president is thought to be required reading for everyone in the room. we had a hearing on this two days ago. of all the reports i have seen,

24 year24 years in the company e had countless reports coming and and this is the best. it was put together by democrats and republicans. if the person on here was appointed by a democrat or republican so they are not afraid to come out and tell the truth. they don't let people know the real threat that's where. that's we have all the problems with our competitors. they told about the threats and conditions we have in this country and i see this particularly to the military guys that are here this comes right out of the report.

this is the commission we are going to use as a blueprint. it isn't adequately resourced and this is a direct quote america is near thofamerica is f strategic consultancy and america's military superiority is the road a dangerous degree. the comba combat edge is diminig or has disappeared in the last few years. it's not just -- here's the bad part of it. we knew it was coming. you should have known if you are here not necessarily someone that came from the foreign countries that we solve this during the administration plan we had chuck hagel who is a good guy we were never good friends but nonetheless he was the secretary of defense and said this is a direct statement denying read this to people in the real world and go back to my

state of oklahoma and i told them that during the obama administration, quote, american dominance on the sea is cal then the skies, in space may no longer be taken for granted. then we had general dunford who says we are losing our qualitative and quantitative edge advantage over our adversary. the general in terms of artillery on very sensitive to that i'm from oklahoma and that is where all of the artillery comes from but in terms of artillery be army is outraged by the adversaries and of course we can't let the navy off here either because the ceo of the navy said the admiral for the entire fleet we have 62% that are not viable. we knew this was happening and the problem was out there.

this is where it is all done. so we have six priorities. the first is to use this as our blueprint for our conduct on the committee and the second is to make sure we continue to get the bill'bills outcome of the authorization bill for the committee i chair to get it out early because quite often it doesn't get out early. we are committed to getting it out before the end of the fiscal year which is october 1. it's true i did and take over the position just a few months ago but i was also doing it on an acting basis before that. we got busy and set a record of getting the defense authorization bill out the quickest in 40 years. we are not going to have a problem. we've got to get out of this

mindset. it would be a disaster. any of you here know that. that's the first thing. second is to rebuild the residence. a lot of people we talked about the problems we are having both we have other problems if we stop and think about some areas where we are not as good, not doing as good a job as our adversaries right now. we are doing up to two years ago we had a brigade combat team he had 30% that are working the same as the aviation brigade had 25% that were working and the marines use the f-18. only 3% were flyable because of maintenance problems. i'm critical of course of president obama.

you've got to talk about these things. defending america is supposed to be the number one priority. it's been my and most americans but then you get into the administrations where it's not. we went through tha that comingm in the carter administration and for the eight years of the obama administration so we had to take care of that and correct that and that is what we are doing. that is the second thing in priority. third, we have to modernize thee force is the power competition and while we've been busy focusing on the fight against terrorism, china and russia have been rapidly modernizing the military and unfortunately they've been doing a good job, so we have a serious problem there. they are doing things better than we can and the military vantage has eroded in the war fighting areas such as power projection, cyberspace, electronic warfare, air, missile

defense, submarine warfare, long-range tires and as a result of the nonpartisathe nonpartisae strategy commission report released this month warns that americans might struggle and this is a quote out of the document here that you are required to read. [laughter] that says we might struggle to win or perhaps lose a war against china or russia and we are talking about now. we don't have any time to waste we've got to restore the advantage and if we fail to do so the cost will be measured in american lives, maybe some of you here. that is a conflict that could have been avoided so we need to prepare our army for these high-end conflict and to be investing in areas like long-range fires and integrated

air and missile defense. we need to modernize the air force fighter and bomber fleet and increased procurement for the advanced munitions and expand the capacity and left in thinking and other area areas ad certainly intelligence surveillance and ends. we need more naval fleets and by the way i was down in nor false holiday monday. it's kind of disturbing. they are doing a good job down there but that's the only place we can make aircraft carriers and when we see with some of the competition is doing and i hope i have this here. i have the chart that shows we are within two years of china passing us up in this capability. our aircraft carriers we've had those that are here so we decided to go with the class

that's better in all respects and it works. we've had 750 of them plan to use but there's a problem. that is the elevators that carried the weapons don't work so right now we can take off and land but if you have to carry it doesn't work. we don't see anything in the future and we are looking and thinking there's a good possibility that we are going to. this is the thing around here. we started out in the year 2000, 318. this is the chinese t-shirts. right now the lines are crossing or paper in 2015. we were at 271 and the b. are 25 and passed in two years. it's not as if and the public is

not aware of it and i hope the public watching and we are trying to communicate we have to understand we have a problem we have to fix and this is one area we are going to do that we need to modernize the marine corps and aircraft and maintenance in an expeditionary way. we need to invest in advance capabilities in space, cyber and electric warfare. we need to accelerate and that key technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum science, hypersonic's. this is probably the only audience i can talk t to that knows what that is. the thing is we were passed up. putin lies about us so i don't believe this but he says we've now passed up the united states in hypersonic's. the new weapon systems to talk

to groups that are not familiar with it and you think about what we can do. we've changed how many hits per minute or per hour to a fraction of a second so we have these things happening in both china and russia primarily china is making great headway so i want to underscore the significance of that to this group here today. the affairs as a predictable consequence of decisions made in the united states for years to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and reduce the number of nuclear weapons so that brings up another problem we have. we've been playing around since the 60s with our modernizing of the nuclear weapons arsenal and we just quit doing it. all the time we were not doing it all of our competitors were and they were making great advancements right now in the

posture review and this is a quote from the report it says since 2010, no potential adversary has reduced either the role of nuclea nuclear weapons s national security strategy or the number of nuclear weapons whether they've moved directly in the opposite direction. the new clear doctrine emphasizes the military value of russia's military thinkers who believe in fundin funding a nucr first strike and russia is engaged in that modernization of the nuclear arsenal and if you don't really believe this there's an article in the marc march 7 grand and it has an

analysis in the event russia should decide to declare war on nato including our contribution they would wind. so it's there and it's real and it's not like the old days and then there's china if you want to be scared look at china it's also modernizing its nuclear arsenal through the introduction of a new clear capable. there is a question as to whether they've passed us up. china is a real force. i just got back from the china seas. i took five members of the committee. they are everywhere and there are seven islands so far and

they are equipped with nothing but bombs and military equipment. our allies in that part of the world i'm talking about the philippines from everyone over there they think they are preparing for world war iii. they look at all the things they are doing down there and they look at us doing very little and try to decide whose side they are going to be on. china didn't use to have outside of its own city limits they didn't have anything and now with 7 miles away from our dreams is as far south in africa there are tanzania. the national defense strategy document right here describes

the combination of the nuclear arsenal as disequilibrium. china is completing its nuclear triad and the response we see this all the time we need to get rid of our nuclear triad and yod hope for the best but hope isn't going to do it. the united states must remain committed to that outlined in the nuclear posture review which is the plan is not cheap but they should consume these calculated 6.4% of our defense budget and that is an affordable price to pay for this security.

let's go back to the priorities. we've talked about the defense commission report blueprint and we talked about the our online to do that now and building the readiness situation and modernizing competition. so the fourth one is caring for servicemembers. this is something they have advantage over us and talking about the competitors because they don't care about people. they are expendable. the senate armed services committee would maintain its focus on the defense reform and

conduct rigorous oversight on the pentagon's efforts to pass an audit. we are doing that right now and haven't done that before but with that, we are going to be able to read you are going to be able to talk to the american people and let them know we are getting the most out of our tax dollars to the new evolving threat and it's time to award contracts and promote reforms that we are talking about this acquisition reform. as i mentioned before i spent eight years in the armed services and the house and 24 years in the senate and i can tell you right now i don't remember one year we didn't try to do something with acquisition reform. i'm from oklahoma familiar with our artillery and i remember when we were going to particular the crusader we spend billions of dollars. and that was a republican

president did that one and then this is something we are going to have to change and that is our fifth thing in the way of the priority that we are going to have in the senate armed services committee. all of these require resources, so last but not least and most important is to discuss the priority of returning to the strategy driven defense. the national defense strategy commission were unequivocally the national defense strategy outlined by secretary is not adequately resourced and our nation is very near the point of strategic consultancy. that's kind of a scary thing. the commission has done a great service by outlining the key

enterprise challenges that we faced to avoid that it's at our own peril so 2019 the mission is clear to eliminate the threat of sequestration you live through the sequestration threat that was out there and test beyond time and appropriation. it's going to have to have sufficient fun is to carry out our national defense strategy and all you have to do is make sure that everybody in the government knows our number one thing is priority in this country should be defense. it should be a no-brainer. people here with your

orientation you know what i'm talking about and the general public doesn't. they make us believe we don't have any threats out there and a lot of it is a waste of money but i can tell you right now with the things we are doing, the priorities have not historically been there and they are going to have to. now this parenting remember we couldn't do, the liberals in congress both house and senate and of course this is the prophecy of president obama for every dollar in the military you've got to put it in social programs. that isn't what we have. there's an old documents nobody reads anymore called the constitution and they say there's two things that are really important. what we are supposed to be doing now he has a senator but i'm supposed to be doing here in washington we are supposed to be defending america and

infrastructure. that's what we are supposed to be doing. and as a priority we are going to be able to do that. what we are proposing is to remove those areas that affect the military from the restrictions that we have, the caps. and i am i'm a conservative ane always be ranked at the top three in the senate and the house but i've always made the exception defending america and the infrastructure so i was incredibly grateful for the partnership is the committee's top minority leader senator jack reed in this effort working together as the half we should continue down the path for a strategy driven budget to give the troops sustained and sufficient predictable funding that they need.

our contractors out there it costs more if they don't know year to year what we are going to be doing, what our priorities are going to be so we feel we are working together and good things are happening but we've got to not repeat the mistakes of the obama cheers by returning to the arpa trade budget cuts. remember how much he cut in defense and by the way, i'm trying to stay within the timeframe, but i want to tell you that if you forget everything i said or you are one who doesn't believe what we went through and we are going to try to get out of, between the two years using constant $2,018, constant $2,018 between the years of 2010 and 2015, write this down, defense spendin but g fell from 794 billion in 2010 from 794 billion to

586,000,000,005 years later in 2015. that's a 24% reduction. i'm looking for some kind of an expression out there. there's got to be somebody concerned about it besides me. media reports indicate that they are constructing the pentagon to drop thi its down to $700 billi. by the way when we got out of this in 2015 and made a commitment we are going to start becoming competitive and start working in the right direction, things seemed to be working pretty well at that time and we were able to make some changes. i can assure you i spent the day before yesterday while over almost two hours with the president and the vice president and with john bolton, the administration talking about the things we are talking about

right now but we are going to have to make to get a priority. maybe it's something like exempting the military from the budget caps. the main thing is to make sure we are going to be in the position that we can be primarily with our competitors and be told yo taught you the pt knows that. so anyway, there is no strategic rationale for any cuts i do buto remember the words of president reagan he said there is no logical way that we can say that stand x. billion dollars less. anyone who advocates a percentage or specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defense would you eliminate and he should be candid enough to acknowledge the cuts and what that would mean in terms of lives. that's what we should be doing and what we are going to be

doing. you've got to keep in mind one group that knows this doesn't have to be told it's you and that is don't trust the media because they will not tell you what sells media. i've heard concerns in the administration some actually in the house and the senate have talked about the challenge of reforming the entitlement programs which is something we could do but they are talking about doing away with some of our programs that we have in terms of our triads as an example that the threat is out there and it's greater than it was in the past. let me put in a plug before i finish up for our president. everybody hates trump. they do. i have two admit confession is

good for the soul. [laughter] every time i hear that tweet is coming out how house can he circumvent a media that hates him. if he stops and looks you want to write these three down because they get in an argument. some of you in this room probably are among those who hate trump. that's all right. you need to recognize what he's done. number one, the military. we are reversing what happened. the 220 billion cuts, we are changing that. that's what we are in the process of giving. the judges. it's not just the supreme court justices that we know so much about, but how many and here are awarin here areaware of the facs confirmed more appellate judges, that's 29 of them in two years, then any president has done in a two year through covering the

history of america. he's done that. and the economy, 4% unemployme unemployment, under 4%, its way down from where it was before. we are probably at the best economy we've had in my lifetime so keep that in mind in the presentation here but you've got to realize he's doing a great job. when i talk i don't talk as a partisan or member of the senate. we've just had over 59th wedding anniversary. we have 20 kids and grandkids and those are the ones i'm talking about. we chuckle a little bit and [inaudible] you can think what you want you look at the statistics i'm giving you and you've got to realize we are going to have to do this. we have made progress in this

readiness recovery and the invested modernization for the great power competition so i think we are doing a great job aof that and i'm urging presidet trump to consider, stop and look at it this way. we went from after the last administration we went into fiscal year 18 to 700 billion-dollar budget. keep in mind that went down. that's still way below what it started out with ten years before. in our fiscal year 18,700,000,000,000-dollar budget in fiscal year 19, 716 billion-dollar budget and 171020 and fiscal year 20 president first announced it was going to be 733 billion-dollar budget. if you read this book it will draw you to the conclusion that thyou agree with and that is tht we should continue for at least

the next five years and have an increase in spending from threem three to 5% above inflation. now if you take the 733 of other people think is too much for fiscal year 20 and you take it as a percentage increase from 2016 from this year, i'm sorry, 716 billion, that is 2.1% increase. that is not even -- it is a zero growth we are entitled at least to that so i realize no matter what the budget congress receives from the administration the workflow have only begun. the two final years of the budget control act and no budget agreement in place we are being told to expect the worst in the coming year but i don't believe that is going to happen. we all know that we need a bipartisan budget agreement the last two years and i think we are going to be able to do that.

forcing the department of defense to run on the resolution were to endure another round of sequestration while we delay the budget agreement is simply not a good idea. i don't have to tell you this because you who are senior officers here know the cost of continuing resolutions and we can't continue to do that and i think we will be able to overcome that. so, i hope the republicans and democrats in 2019 will choose to spare our troops and other purpose than fight on the defense spending. i find out a lot more when i'm over in afghanistan in may this whole field someplace from our kids than i do from some of the hearings we have here in washington and they are watching what we are doing. don't think for a moment they don't know what we are doing. they know who their friends are and aren't and they know what the competition is and they know all about china and russia and the threat being posed.

they are aware of that and anything we don't need to do send them a message we can't get a degree on a reasonable budget and we are not going to do that. i would conclude with that and say we are back to george marshall again. he said we are now concerned with the peace of the entire world and it can only be maintained by the strong answers ronald reagan we always remember what he said the need to modernize our nuclear activity and missile defense because if we don't, we might have to use it. he's the one who said we want to keep a strong america and we want t to have all this capabily so we don't have to use it and i hope that is what happens, so with that i will open up to anything you want to talk about. [applause]

>> when you've been married 59 years, you want to do with your told. [laughter] >> you called a copy of the assessment of the strategy available to you and we set aside some reading days towards the end of this month. [laughter] i really mean that it's a great document. you know what i mean because it tells the hard truth about where we really are today. you don't get that just everywhere and that's why it's important for people like you to be aware of it. sputnik i clicked to build upon a couple of things you brought uup and a at a couple points fre commission to start with the budget one of our colleagues the focus of their curriculum is on the next resourcing of this national security strategy and the first time i talk to the

students in the auditorium, i talked about a proposal to create a national defense university by george washington. the point was great idea that there were not enough resources to support it at that time and similar to what you said when president george washington addressed congress on the first budget he said to prepare for the board is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace. peace. very similar to what you said. in the media you've commented 733 billion for defense spending is a floor or not a ceiling and that has been widely cited and you've characterized past budgets as leads, inadequate and shrinking sweat like to ask if you think it is on track to be fully funded and resource in the fiscal year 2020 and why are you saying 733 billion is a floor and not a ceiling the reason is

and it goes back to the report for the next five years and probably beyond everyone is in agreement with this, certainly the secretary is in agreement with it and that is the cost to have a minimum of three to 5% increase in the budget after completion. we didn't really do that i mentioned we went from the old figure to $700 billion, 716, 733 billion, but even if we go to the 733 billion, that is no growth because if you do the math between the 716 and 733 billion it is a 2.1% increase so i would say everyone that we have asked in the committees we have had granted they are all military and agree you can't go below no growth and

that is the reason for that figure. >> if the test budgets were late and adequate and shrinking what are the characteristics that wounded in hands rather than undermined the national security more broadly? >> i know i've talked about that and maybe i talk about it too much but it goes back to what we are supposed to be doing. we are not jokingly talking about the good old days when we had two superpowers that's not the way it is any more. when you have the nations like iran, this lousy thing we did do something that shipped billions of dollars to continue being the world's leader in terrorism and if they have that capability, then they are practically

gaining it. north korea they've already shown so this is the kind of threats we have. this is the most significant thing we can deal with today. >> we spend more than china and russia combined somehow do we determine how much we should spend why should they tell us and second, played for is what we are going to do. they don't have to do any of that stuff.

they don't have total control and so anytime you see china doing as i mentioned that they are doing in the south china sea and tanzania around the world in the middle east, you know that they are everywhere and consequentially the best answer i can give you is that it's not true. the national defense strategy this is a distinctive value on the partners and i want to shift to analyze for a second. the student population includes representatives of both allies and given the scale do you feel the administration and congress

adequately rakic iced the value of the alliances in the architecture? >> i mentioned i had the opportunity to be with the president and vice president in the cabinet. people kind of question that we have the strength to be good allies did they see what china is doing through the nation but we've got to have the allies.

one of the differences now when you look at the countries around the world they know we don't have the resources to participate so we've got to build it up and that's one of the things people see and do change ithechange in the distrin within the budget is what can we do that is going to help us in these areas. another discussion that came up last tuesday in the white house is when are we going to be in the position to do with these allies.

. >> one of the areas he has been asked to look at is the strategic deterrence which includes nuclear deterrence with the modernization and chairman and back in november with your policy your counterpart on the house side mister smith says number one a nuclear posture review we cannot afford what they are talking about. he goes on to cite the 22 million-dollar debt of the nuclear triad others say we need to choose between nuclear

and convention modernization nuclear weapons are not cheap but that is driving the national debt can we afford to keep the whole dried up quick. >> people have different philosophies of mister smith he is a good man we have gone through several of the big four conferences to come up with the defense authorization bill. but i think he made a mistake with the nuclear modernization because that report has been agreed to by all services. that is our number one threat right now which is our nuclear capability.

if we wake up and deciding in the sixties with that improvement that they made in the 1980s at the same time we don't think they are even aware of the fact we are competitors. and as a result that sends the number one threat. so but as far as being a conservative to be ranked as a conservative it is very clear in my presentation where my priorities are and by the way i think we will see even though the democrats take control of the house when it gets down to the area of defending america that we will be much closer together. >> so do we need to choose? . >> i can assure you there is

one senior uniform in here. . >> shifting to the great power competition that you brought up 2018 through the defense strategy with a great power competition with china and russia the highest priority and the commission report evaluated in the report that america's military superiority the backbone had eroded to a dangerous degree. what are the specific areas that you have with military advantage where russia and china do not? . >> i have to leave the podium because i have a sheet where they are superior in the nuclear areas. i want to answer you right. let me get it.

shipbuilding. i mentioned already so they are definitely ahead of us in that area. hypersonic site am inclined to think if you have asked me six months ago i would not have given the same answer but what they are doing and hypersonic's. it is the illusion like another period of time and it has a huge impact around the world i am inclined to think they are actually ahead of us and electronic warfare. yes we watched what russia did

with the ukraine. they are competitive and ahead of us they are. the triad. i did not take the time to give the detail as which leg of the triad but they are in all three legs right now. they weren't until reset and china wasn't recently but they are right now. so of course, with artillery when they say both china and russia has been outgunned and outranked, he knows what he's talking about. >> so that thread out there quick. >> shifting to africa because we talked about that earlier

one of the foremost experts on africa and the importance of us engagement's everybody knows he was the lead are architect and the national defense strategy with great power competition and those countries are doing a lot more and in what areas do you see china and russian activity and what should we do to better compete quick. >> so america will tell you what you need and china builds what you need. they don't hire anybody in africa. that is part of their plan. there isn't one that i am familiar with the colosseum' colosseum's, all of the infrastructure that is built , it is out there and they are

doing it. but there isn't one that i can think of. either they want their oil or energy or something they have that china does not. they would be the ones i would be most concerned about. i thought you were going to ask because not too long ago they were talking about, in fact, i think they made some changes with our troops and power so if i could drop this out we need activity but the problem with africa is you ever promise somalia and then you have a problem someplace on the east coast and west coast. so and i have talked to them about this to be dedicated to

africa we would necessarily have to have the troops. obviously the marines primarily but if you could have it that we could respond to zimbabwe or niger or somalia between those three areas, that is across the united states. that might be a better way to discover our interest in africa than to have that populated. >> right. that is a strategy. >> so now we would like to open some questions. >>.

>> identified them if they are from another country. >> i am from the polish armed forces. it is great to have you here 2000 years ago they said if you want to live in peace then prepare to war i am grateful you brought george but it is also said that you cannot compete basically by bringing more of the same. so my question is how do you see the role of the united states not only convincing but encouraging the alliance to

not only spending more for the defense but developing them and bringing new technologies quick. >> it is a big world out there. there are a lot of areas you to give a different answer to that question some in western europe like we talked about like a burden sharing i was in lithuania not too long ago. and in their case and in the former soviet union countries still they are very strong on our side and want our presence but our presence there is worth the vision that they want and it's fine when we go win but then to have dedicated people in those areas. john bozeman is in on this

issue trying to do that. it depends on what country. i didn't get the source of the first quote? . >> he is a roman historian before christ it means if you want to live in peace prepare to war. >> exactly so did george marshall. who is more prominently quoted like ronald reagan because in order not to have to use use it you have to have it. if you don't have it then you have to use it so that is

exactly what he is saying. it is true. >> we need a microphone. >> he is pretty loud. [laughter] . >> i am with the department thank you for your comments and your service. and with those defense marks and rightly so with the armed services committee mentioned the need it with the upcoming budget. international security and what secretary mattis talked about and development.

so what role should that play in national security? . >> very important. and i believe with the senate foreign relations committee we don't always agree with each other. so to be prepared if it doesn't work. if you are in the type of negotiation so we are an agreement. we talked about this issue all the time but if you are in negotiations you are also better off and what phil gramm

used to say the lion and the lamb would lie down together. >> thank you very much for talking to us today i agree with your comments we need to have robust military spending and conventional and nuclear. and with defense spending and negotiated spending. >> and without adding to that debt. and with entitlement reform.

yes your fellow senators working on a plan to address those. >> so with that documented thing if we eliminated all defense we would still have a deficit. and there are reforms people were talking about. and to prioritize. in the fiscal year 18. into give a new priority. and then we finally broke

parity in fiscal year 19. . >> and to be exempt with defense spending and the only way to correct that and i am one who will support that. . >> good morning. so this question will be similar as a follow-up. and that we have heard other resources and what concerns me

more for those resources they need to fight them. and when the debt is 70 percent if nothing changes gdp is 152 percent by 2045. when they do get to that point treasury bonds do you consider the status of our debt as a defense problem? . >> so you will not resolve that with mandatory spending that discretionary part of the budget is very small. so if you do away with the military altogether so with

the entitlement reform and let me qualify something. coming to visit me i am the most conservative member i have 20 kids and grandkids. this is why we have to get to the solution of the problem but there are different people working on the committee and we will have to do that. glad you feel that way but not on the backs of the kids.

>> sir, the national security strategy talking about china and they are increasing and that cannot compare. so what are the assumptions? between one year ago and now? . >> the threat from china to now? . >> no. that china is not a threat but as a competitor.

and increasing of the military could escalate the two countries quick. >> i'm not sure i understand what you say. on sanctions that is another issue altogether. but some that have been punished by sanctions by this administration on the other hand, it is easily working. we overhear things are different than they are here and we have done this for a long period of time and we have been at a competitive disadvantage for quite a long period of time with the chinese and negotiations. we could have a happy ending but in the meantime we have to keep in mind i always say competitive yes but i also say

threat when i made my presentation i did say threat talking about china having resources that we don't have with modernization they are an areas where they are our allies but yet with the china sea they are sitting back and wondering what about america who is a threat to who? all i can say is i consider anyone who has anything better than we do militarily to be a potential threat. my job is to minimize that. >> one more question from the audience. . >> from the national war college i would like to ask a question with the senate and

the military both from the general officers coming up from the hill but also staff from the field what are your expectations what do you recommend in our career? . >> yes. there is a program that was started under the first bush administration that gives people from the services i rotate mine always keep one with me and there is one in the audience today it is a great program if people in the military know how things are really run. it is a shock treatment to most of them. but it is great. during that timeframe talk about the military fellowship program when they come in for one year you fall in love with them and depend on them and

when they leave they go back and they tell the truth about the problems and why. for example, serving in the office is not a priority with them but then if i don't know if anyone would be better informed than those who have gone through that program we had a president once he didn't like the program did not think it was good or a good idea for the civilians to know what's going on i disagree and i can assure you that as the one who was with me now that will be leaving the end of december he will go back and be very equipped to be a good soldier and a better than he was one year ago. >> thank you very much for

your time. i have one question very unpredictable world but i would like to hear your prediction on the orange bowl. [laughter] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

. >> i worked with four people who worked for future presidents, carter, clinton, presidents, carter, clinton, bak obama and to my surprise, donald trump. i also came to understand about donald trump and this is profoundly important for the way things work now that in

his heart of heart believes he always wins. here is a guy who is been in new york real estate gambling rustling beauty contest, televisio contest, television, constructin , never been the target of a criminal investigation. that is astonishing in new york state. . >>